The "I VOTED" sticker is the iconic symbol of the US election. When was it introduced and was it predated by some other emblem of having voted?

1. How was Ronald Reagan able to capture the youth vote in 84. Given his age then what qualities or policies made him appealing to that age demographic (especially given the gap in age between him and them).

2. Relating to that period, why did the Democrats lose 5 out of 6 Presidential elections from 1968-1988, was the party somehow fragmented/disunited or did they just run bad candidates (and the Republicans better candidates) or was it just because the population just favored the Republicans more?

The election of 1824 stands out as being odd. Voter turnout was under 27%, almost half of the second lowest voter turnout in American history. JQ Adams lost the popular vote to Jackson by over 10% and still won the electoral vote. The following election, JQ Adams lost by a similar amount in the popular vote but was crushed in the electoral college.

What the hell happened here? Why was there such a low voter turnout? JQ Adams did abysmally the election before, and lost by quite a bit in 1824 and 1828, did he rig the election somehow?

I have been researching how Roman elections during the Roman Republic worked and I came across something I do not understand. Hope this mega thread might attract the people who can help me!

I've read that every year 20 Quaestors (at least after the reforms of Sulla) are elected. These are elected by the Tribal Assembly which consists of 35 tribes and which, in total, can cast 35 votes. I'm guessing the 20 electable Quaestors with the top 20 votes are elected.

However would this system not lead to a lot of Quaestors with an equal amount of votes?

Example: say the first 5 electable Quaestors cover 20 tribal votes. Now there are only 15 votes left and still we need to elect 15 Quaestors. So either they all get 1 vote or there are not enough votes for all 20 electable Quaestors.

Am I misunderstanding something here? Can anyone enlighten me about this?

Please note I already posted a separate question for this here https://redd.it/5bfenq

Has there been any candidate who has received as much opposition from the 'establishment' as Donald Trump?

Has there ever been such foreign (mainly Russian) 'interference' in American elections before this?

What is the history of popular debate on alternate electoral systems with the United States? Have there been serious attempts to implement models such as STV or MMP at either national or state level?

According to Wikipedia, the United States has enjoyed uninterrupted "peaceful, election-based transfer[s] of political power" from 1800 to the present. Is this a consensus opinion among historians? And if so, why do they make that statement ignoring the Civil War?

Wikipedia tells me that in the 1788-89 election, George Washington ran essentially unopposed. Was there any even remotely viable candidate that could get/was trying to get the necessary support for the presidency? I can guess the usual suspects like Adams and Jefferson, but I'd love to know how much thought anyone actually gave to going into competition with Washington.

It seems for many decades now rural voters are more likely to vote right and urban voters are more likely to vote left.

Why did it turn out this way? Is there a historical reason?

What was the debate over the 12th amendment like? The procedure by which the house votes by states in a bloc in the event of a tie or no candidate reaching a majority of the electors seems kind of insane. In 1803/4 who was supporting/opposing those features of the amendment?

Why is the electoral college still a thing?

Why is early voting far more common in the western United States than the east?

Only one state west of the Mississippi (MO) doesn't allow early voting. Twelve east of the Mississippi don't.

Were the founders of the US really against a two party system like we have today?

I see people say this a lot online, but I'm not sure if it's actually true. When I Googled it, I am only seeing less than reputable sources. Like this quote attributed to John Adams:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Source

I know people on the internet love to make up quotes and attribute them to important historical figures. Could an expert here please give me an idea of how the founders felt about a two party system?

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I didn't see any past questions about it.

America has no doubt survived questionable presidents before. Historians, what are some examples of highly egregious behavior of sitting presidents and how did the country react to them?

I’ve read/heard that Newt Gingrich’s speakership was qualitatively different from his predecessors; that he consolidated power int the Speakership and increased partisanship. How fair is that assessment and (if true) how did he carry it out?

What exactly was the ‘Contract with America’ and how integral was it to the GOP’s congressional successes in 1994? How much of the project was actually implemented once the GOP was in power?

Wyoming and then Colorado were the first states to give women the right to vote, and for a while the territory of Utah had suffrage in there, too. I've been reading about local suffragists, and a number of Colorado's activists appear to have been Easterners who only temporarily relocated, e.g. Minnie J. Reynolds moved to Denver four years before women's suffrage was voted in, and was back in New York six years after that. Was there an intentional idea of targeting western states, and if so, why? There are common narratives of Western suffrage as a measure of the higher relative value of women on the frontier, or as a means to draw more women west. How much do these hold water today?

When was the last occurrence of a Republican President alongside a House and Senate with Republican majority? What if we throw a mostly conservative Supreme Court in as well? When have these "Perfect Storm" conditions existed previously?

What is the record for longest amount of time between election day and concession speech? Was a victory speech delivered prior? How about the record for longest wait for a victory speech?

I understand that the "first past the post" contest makes the two-party system inevitable. How did the Republican and Democratic parties come to be those two parties for the United States? What happened to the Whigs that nobody ever even thinks about them anymore (What did they promise anyway, as I assume the party wasn't about hair pieces?)

Why did Lincoln actually decide to fight a civil war rather that let the south have their secession? As an outsider, America seems so deeply divided today, perhaps even along the same territorial lines as the union vs the confederates. It seems like a solution would have been to just let the south separate with their own ideology.

Do the protests we are seeing tonight have any historical precedent? Has there ever been widespread protests following the results of a presidential election?

When was the last time the KKK endorsed candidate won the presidency?

Reddit Announcement says that America has had the longest uninterrupted peaceful transfer of power in the world. Wikipedia says this streak started with the Revolution of 1800. What made the election of 1800 1796 NOT a peaceful transfer of power?

EDIT: Wikipedia seems to have remembered the civil war and has been amended to 1869, but my question remains.

Have there ever been recorded events of dishonesty by Electoral voters?

Have there ever been recorded events of electoral voters going against the candidate that their state voted for? (Specifically talking about Presidental elections, but if this system is used in other elections it might be interesting to learn about any dishonesty here).

Here is what I mean:

• Voters in State X all vote for "Turd Sandwich". "TS" wins every district.

• There are 18 electoral voters, which I understand are actual people who have to go out and cast a ballot.

• 17 of those electoral voters dutifully cast their votes for Turd Sandwich.

• The 18th and final electoral voter is an angry "Giant Douche" supporter, and he goes out and votes for "GD" anyway, regardless of how his state voted.

Is this a possible scenario we could find ourselves in? I know it is highly unlikely to happen, and even if it did the results would not likely impact the entire nation, but still -- has an electoral voter ever gone against what his state wants, just because he can?

Edit: I found this neat Wiki article, but I would still like to hear what any historians have to say about this.

I remember that I read somewhere, that one of the presidents of US, immediately after he was elected, completely changed his policy and what he was campaigning for. Can anyone give me more details? Thank you.

Why are so many US states on a winner-take-all system for the electoral college? What were the arguments in individual states for and against that decision?

Particular interest in Texas, as it's my home state.

I don't want to seem threatening here- my roommates and I were talking about this, and I'm genuinely curious/worried. What would happen if both the President-Elect and Vice-President elect died before they could be sworn in? Is there a precedent for this? Who becomes President and Vice President then?

Have any other candidates been in the running for president (or won the election) while awaiting trial, or immediately after an investigation?

We've heard a lot about "rigged" elections this cycle. how honest have us elections been? how historical are claims of rigging?

What led to Reagan having such a dramatic win in 1984?

What was the least attended US presidential inauguration and why?

When was the last time republicans had house, senate, POTUS and supreme court? How did it go?

What is the earliest documented case of an election by the public to determine a country's head-of-state?

Of course, "public" can be interpreted differently here (ie was the US a public election before women's suffrage? before blacks could vote? draw the line wherever you see fit).

Hi everyone! Do you see elections and the whole electoral process* as a representation of historical determinism or individual agency?

Just wondering about your opinions!

*edit: missed a word

If we use the electoral college to prevent a heavily populated state like California having too much of a say in the national election results, has any state ever considered an electoral college-like system to try to prevent their heavily populated metropolitan areas from having a disproportionate amount of representation rather than a popular vote deciding who will represent the state? Is that essentially what Maine and Nebraska do by splitting their votes?

How have various historiographies and their historians viewed the election of 1800? Also, any specific books or articles you recommend to read regarding it?

Is there a consensus among historians on who the worst US President was? What about the best? Is there a difference between what American historians think and what historians from other countries think?

What is the most damage a president has done to the United States?

This tread may be stale but I'll ask anyway.

It seems really unlikely that this is the first election where blaming immigrants, minorities and foreign powers for the nation's problems was a winning platform. But how common was this in past elections?

Conversely, I have vague memories of the political machines of the late 19th century being based on a coalition of immigrants. Am I remembering this correctly and/or has this ever been a winning strategy in American politics?

I've noticed that 2016 election seems to share a lot in common with 2008 in that people had great distrust for their government and both Obama and Trump ran on change platform and won. Is there any historical precedent in US presidential election that is similar in this regard, where an non-establishment candidate gained popularity and won by rejecting the two establishment parties?

Before television and photography, to what extent did Americans know what politicians looked like? Would a farmer in the backwoods have seen any sort of visual representation of Presidential or even Gubernatorial candidates? What about folks from small towns or even cities?